Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bathsheba at Her Bath
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. Fabrictramp (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bathsheba at Her Bath[edit]
- Bathsheba at Her Bath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Article contains only an infobox. – Ilse@ 16:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this article could easily be speedied for no content, or virtually no content, but otherwise just delete. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 16:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete A1. No context. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Commentary can be found. I added a reference pointing to some. --Eastmain (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - Are we joking? This is a picture by Rembrandt. Do you want sources? Any book about Rembrandt is such a source, there are hundreds of them. The subject of this article is hardly non-notable. The problem with the article is that it has to be fleshed out, but this is not solved by deleting it. Goochelaar (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The article we were discussing is not the article you see. Here is what most of us were discussing. Of the thousands of works by Rembrandt, there was nothing in the article to single it out. Yes, every known work is certainly referenced in stacks of books, but I seriously doubt wikipedia will have an article on each one in my lifetime. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I see, thanks for the clarification. Nonetheless, I stand my opinion. It is not by deleting malformed, defective, incomplete, almost-non-existent articles about notable subjects that we shall improve them. Not really relevant to the AfD: to address you remarks, there are already several articles about Rembrandt's works, and if some WikiProject could and would concentrate on this, in a short time we could have at least stubs about tens, if not hundreds, of his works. Compare this to the articles about each single episode of beloved TV shows (and I am not saying that the latter have no space in WP). Goochelaar (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was thinking the exact same thing... Perhaps if as much time were spent improving inferior articles on notable subjects as is spent trying to delete them.... Maybe we could have articles on thousands of Rembrandt works. And how would that be so terrible? Any worse than having an article on every episode of Family Guy? Dekkappai (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I see, thanks for the clarification. Nonetheless, I stand my opinion. It is not by deleting malformed, defective, incomplete, almost-non-existent articles about notable subjects that we shall improve them. Not really relevant to the AfD: to address you remarks, there are already several articles about Rembrandt's works, and if some WikiProject could and would concentrate on this, in a short time we could have at least stubs about tens, if not hundreds, of his works. Compare this to the articles about each single episode of beloved TV shows (and I am not saying that the latter have no space in WP). Goochelaar (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The article we were discussing is not the article you see. Here is what most of us were discussing. Of the thousands of works by Rembrandt, there was nothing in the article to single it out. Yes, every known work is certainly referenced in stacks of books, but I seriously doubt wikipedia will have an article on each one in my lifetime. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - Per "Are we joking?" Rembrandt? What's next, Beethoven's 4th, because who's heard of anything but the 5th?... Sourcing available through dozens of books, journals, news articles, etc., Dekkappai (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Jeez. If anything belongs in an encyclopedia its articles about notable paintings. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep due to the fact that this has been improved and cleaned up enough so that the nominators initial objection no longer seems to apply. Bfigura (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This a pretty famous painting by Rembrandt (meeting WP:N), and can be expanded further. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Despite the earlier condition of the article, it is unquestionably a notable topic (major painting by a major painter in a major museum). This is what cleanup templates are for. --Dhartung | Talk 07:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per earlier comments -- and someone needs to get Bathsheba a bathrobe! Ecoleetage (talk) 11:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.